Comments on: Beyond Copenhagen: sub-national solutions are now keyhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5By: john moseleyhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9129
Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:17:00 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9129If you believe that you still have an open mind about the cause(s) of climate change please keep reading. Since the end of 2007 the theory of Earth’s climate being driven by the Sun has become something that can be tested against current climate activity. Having entered a prolonged period of ‘solar minimum’ activity two years ago, the theory holds that our planet will now cool year on year as the collapsing heliosphere allows more cosmic rays to increase our global cloud cover. While it takes more than two years to prove a theory, my example of the UK has had its two worst winters in 08 and 09 since the late 80’s, something that MUST continue to get worse in the years to come (assuming the Sun remains the same) to prove the connection. To see what the Sun is doing on a daily basis, search for the SOHO telescope which takes various images on different wavelengths.
]]>By: Jimmer XXXhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9095
Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:03:53 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9095The way forward may also be the the way back; the hinterlands of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are models of population control and low emissions.
]]>By: John Pitcherhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9089
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:23:55 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9089You vaguely mention political grandisosity and skirt the fact Copenhagen was a huge attempted money grab. It was extortion as art. Many of us who do not believe ‘proof’ of global warming (especially when the raw, empirical data is not shared) still support moving to power-generating methods using nuclear, wind, water, and solar as a means of reducing emissions. But the idiocy of many outspoken supporters of Copenhagen in bringing forward agendas wedded to other causes (anti-livestock farming vegetarians, anti-nuclear-power-generation eco-enthusiasts, anti-anyhting-US zealots) has undermined our support for anything recommended by the Conference. Finally, if anyone wishes to represent themselves as caring about the catastrophies that might be visited on their fellow citizens, they should learn the lesson that you cannot regulate, fine, and imprison those you wish to help as the method to help them. That works for grabbing dominion over people, not helping them.
]]>By: Ian Kemmishhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9086
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:06:12 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9086The failure to reach any binding COP15 agreement was easily predictable by anybody who had been paying attention to the WTO Doha round over the past decade. And I can’t help thinking that it is ultimately a good thing. Even Mr (Dr? Prof?) Hunt’s column is full of sentences which read as if catastrophic climate change were a governmental problem, to be solved by governments (albeit regional and city governments now).

It isn’t. I’d go as far as to say it never was. It’s a people problem, to be solved by people. The mistake I believe the scientists made was that when the people didn’t listen to them, they started talking to the politicians instead. That had two terrible consequences. Firstly, it let the people off the hook – our airwaves and press are full of people blaming the government for its failure to tackle this even as they jet off to their third city-break of the year. Secondly, by politicising the question, it led to the current schism between “affirmers” and “deniers’ (shouldn’t we all just be concentrating on improving the models?), and both bandwagons are now groaning under the weight of journalists who have no interest in climate change beyond whether they can build a career out of it.

At least the COP15 failure means that people now know it’s not enough to carry on as before and rely on the government to dig them out of their hole. We will, collectively, get the future we deserve, whatever that is.

]]>By: Tonyphttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9083
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:07:16 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9083Can we now get talking about the real problem namely overpopulation. China has done something about it, how about the rest of the world following their example, one child per family. Not a hope!!!
]]>By: John Lamblehttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9076
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:07:07 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9076It is a matter of enormous satisfaction to many people that this juggernaut of dubious science, commercial interest and politics has hit a stumbling block. As a scientist and the owner of a scientific software company I have been appalled by the grandiosity of the ‘colleagues’ who have used every dirty trick known to bad science to promote themselves, damage their opponents and pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

The world has gigantic problems which need to be addressed directly: the population explosion, general pollution, the shortage of clean water, grinding poverty, lack of medical care etc. Money needs to be spent on these and not channelled into the pockets of the carbon kleptocrats.

]]>By: Eden and Applehttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/comment-page-1/#comment-9075
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:28:27 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4984#comment-9075Scientists must be free to state… OH yes yes yes Correct Freedom is where its all at. YOU say In effect, the agreement may ultimately amount to no more than a long-term climate change dialogue between Washington and Beijing. THE facts are that while the world and yourself are talking about it China has been for many years flat out reducing emissions. THE REASONS EMICTIONS are high today on this planet is because of STUPIDITY of national Governments and their Fawning councils. FOR the last 100 years all attempts by citizens to fix the problem have been mercilessly crushed by these entities. AND threatened with incarceration. Some years ago in England farmers made petrol. They had Queues of 1000 cars per day visiting and buying cheap fuel. The heavy BOOT of these above mentioned authorised entities kicked and killed the green shoots of citizens who believed they had human rights. Never mind your centre of gravity euphemism instead what about the centre of Stupidity in actuality. And your chuckle scientists must be free to state.. gravitation matters. China has already said that the agreement is a Differential agreement so that should help you in your understanding of what the agreement amounts to and end your supposition that long term dialogue is an essential ingredient. AS to cities and the insane juxtaposition of facilities which are all lovingly erected in the exact wrong places by these lunatic entities words fail me. The words Stupid bankers comes to mind with a W instead of B.
]]>